Did you read what people of wrote, nobody blames expansionist clubs for Wakey's problems, that's firmly at the toes of Ted and you would know that if you read through the threads, there might be the odd one or two who say stupid things, but hey every clubs got those. But if you can't see how the RFL have done everything in their power to make sure you come out of the administration process, then there's no point. The RFL sent a team of guys down to help you through your problems, what have they done for Trinity, nothing. All they had to do is sign off on the 'fit and proper' forms for the new owner, but that's been delayed. Do you honestly think if Trinity still owned their stadium the RFL would have loaned us the money that they did you? At the end of the day the owners and directors of Trinity have ruined this club with mismanagement and poor business sense, end of.

I appreciate you are upset, but why bring any other clubs into this? I'm not aware of the RFL lending money to anyone but each case of administration is different, and when people start making up lies about other clubs having 'far bigger' debts it doesn't achieve anything. I know it's an easy target to blame expansion clubs since they are the new guys and you might feel that they are invading and pushing you out, but really it's a pretty childish attitude to take. Despite what people might think, nobody wants to see any clubs go to the wall. The fact is that your club is obviously in serious financial trouble and in its current form is untenable. Crusaders were not in serious trouble, they entered administration for a brief period to manage debts from a previous regime, they were not looking for a new owner and were able to carry on trading through that time. This clearly isn't the case for Wakey. Crusaders suffered the punishment and lost a star player as a result, it's not as if they got off lightly in any way. And for the person who brought Harlequins and Catalans into it, that was just pathetic and uncalled for. I'm not a Crusaders fan FWIW. Just a well-wisher of the game.

Then you're not aware of all the facts that pertain to what's being discussed and as such, shoud probably keep your gob shut; apart from maybe apologising for your previous post.

Isn't this what you were guilty of when you signed Grix, Blanch and Wilkes from Widnes in 2007?

yes we was,

amazing how crap it feels when it happens to you

Wasnt this at the end of the season though and not after the first game?

Sorry but your talking crap. If Crusaders were not in serious trouble how did they manage to rack up debts of over 2m including 700k to the RFL for assistance they gave them (which has subsequently being converted into what appears to be an interest free loan which effectively guarantees their SL future). I am sure that their creditors could have received a far better deal had O'haras sold Witt, Sammut and Withers to name a few.

The club has effectively had 3 different identities in 3 years and is now only just outside the RL heartlands.

We all accept Ted Richardson has brought us to our knees, but the RFL with their blatant double standards appear determined to strike the final blow.

So say what you like, but I and many others are entitled to be annoyed about the favouritism to a club that has been around for less than 10 years, whilst one over 130 years old is left to rot

I think the circumstances were different to a certain degree in that you were already in the championship (or whatever it was called at the time) and undoubtedly these players would have left anyway. THe way things are going we are going to be left with a Championship squad trying to compete week in week out in SL and the main reason now appears to be that the RFL can't get their act together and provide written confirmation that the new owner is fit and proper, which is something they had already confirmed verbally.

I'm not sure things are all that different. These were players that were still under contract at my club and we went from having one of the best squads in the competition to having a squad of five players and needing to overturn a 9 point penalty.
It also took the RFL somewhere in the region of 2 - 3 weeks to rubber-stamp everything for us meaning our first and junior teams were completely decimated.

In terms of the RFL... I thought that there was a report in one the papers yesterday from the Administrator saying that they were waiting on Mr Glover to make the next move?

There are conflicting stories from the administrators. Their website states they have agreed a sale to Mr Glover subject to the RFL confirming in writing he is a fit and proper person. Yesterday morning one of them said a deal hadnt been agreed with him yet and then another story later that day said they expected the deal to be concluded Tuesday (which we all took as yesterday).

Mr Glover seems to be a sensible businessman and I doubt he got it wrong, I think he is being "dicked about" by the RFL

Crusaders had debts run up by a previous owner. They went into admin to allow them to handle said debts. The same people who owned the club pre-admin bought it out of admin in short order. As they were the same people they didn't need to go through the 'fit and proper person' test again, and the period in admin was short enough that the administrator had neither the time nor the need to sell many assets.

The £700k owed to the RFL has not been converted into an interest-free loan. It is covered by a mortgage on the Racecourse Ground. This is an option that was unfortunately not open to Wakey. There is also some information about that suggests that Crusaders are having SKY money docked on a regular basis to ensure that it's paid back in good time.

There have been many mistakes made in the RFL's handling of Crusaders over the last few years, but the way they dealt with the administration did not show any [iparticular[/i favouritism. If they were that biased they could simply have written off the £700k rather than insist on it being paid back as a condition of allowing Crusaders back into SL.

Upton cat I hope you don't mind I copied and pasted your letter to the RFL and ised it a little and sent it again, with Upton cats approval do you not think if we all did this it would come to the point that they would have to reply to one of us.

Excuse my ignorance,but how does having the security of the ground indicate that its not an interest free loan?
It sounds exactly like a loan to me secured against the ground.

Not sure but if a club is relegated from SL, does it mean that the players then become free agents and allowed to move which is slightly different as we are still in SL for the minute.

Not being picky like but if you had one of the best squads why were you relegated in the first place.

One thing we do share though is the points deduction due to the incompetance of other people, so we can now say we know how you must have felt